Essentializing Generalizations

A significant limitation of existing research on race, ethnicity, and conflict are the ways in which studies have contributed to the creation of preferred conflict styles of proto­typical “culture-typed” persons (M.

Studies have pointed to the importance of considering ethnic, gender, and class differ­ences alongside racial lines (Cook-Gumperz & Szymanski, 2001; Houston & Wood, 1996; Miyahara et al., 1998). However, the majority of research continues to pro­mote racialized conflict styles as normative. A good example of this can be seen within the work of Kochman (1981). His often-cited book, Black and White Styles in Conflict, has served as the foundation reference for research on African Americans and European Americans. While his findings are applied generally across contexts, he specified the particular circumstances of Blacks and Whites described in his work: “middle-class whites, the white group I have been writing about, and Blacks whose social networks exists almost entirely within the Black community” (p. 165). Research often fails to recognize that conflict is experienced differently by racial/ ethnic group members based on factors such as class, gender, age, and spirituality. This point is driven home by Houston (2002), who provided the following caution, and guidance, to researchers:

While researchers may choose to emphasize one aspect of African Americans’ complex, intersecting identities in a particular study, no single aspect should be conceived as uni­versally “more important” than the others.... Researchers should take responsibility for finding productive ways of breaking the silences and demonstrating how African Americans construct and perform complex, heterogeneous communicative lives. (p. 37)